From: "Jay Carlson" <nop@nop.com>
To: <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>, <linux-mips@fnet.fr>
Subject: kernel should not reject -mips2 ELF binaries
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:20:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <KEEOIBGCMINLAHMMNDJNEEDHCAAA.nop@nop.com> (raw)
include/asm-mips/elf.h contains a macro, elf_check_arch, that decides if an
executable is plausible to run under this kernel. It currently accepts
binaries flagged as MIPS1 ISA, and rejects all other ISAs.
#define elf_check_arch(hdr) \
({ \
int __res = 1; \
struct elfhdr *__h = (hdr); \
\
if ((__h->e_machine != EM_MIPS) && \
(__h->e_machine != EM_MIPS_RS4_BE)) \
__res = 0; \
if (__h->e_flags & EF_MIPS_ARCH) \
__res = 0; \
\
__res; \
})
I think we should make an exception for MIPS2. Turns out that the two Linux
VR processor families benefit from some of the MIPS II features; most
notably, code density is improved by eliminating load delay slots. If I
build executables that take advantage of this, they legitimately should be
flagged with E_MIPS_ARCH_2 (since they won't run on my decstation).
So what's the right way to fix this? Three things come to mind:
1) rip out the EF_MIPS_ARCH check from elf_check_arch.
2) compare the value with E_MIPS_ARCH_1 and E_MIPS_ARCH_2
3) figure out what the capabilities of the current processor are and reject
E_MIPS_ARCH2 on R2/3000s.
I'd just go do #3 except it looks like a bigger pain than it's worth. No
other linux kernel port goes to that amount of trouble, of course.
(I may do #1 or #2 in the Linux VR CVS as a stopgap.)
Jay
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Jay Carlson" <nop@nop.com>
To: linux-mips@oss.sgi.com, linux-mips@fnet.fr
Subject: kernel should not reject -mips2 ELF binaries
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:20:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <KEEOIBGCMINLAHMMNDJNEEDHCAAA.nop@nop.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20001107022000.CP3t2FqO5zHA-PaaSabqfZoCrIeNNI8mI8wz7FaNPiM@z> (raw)
include/asm-mips/elf.h contains a macro, elf_check_arch, that decides if an
executable is plausible to run under this kernel. It currently accepts
binaries flagged as MIPS1 ISA, and rejects all other ISAs.
#define elf_check_arch(hdr) \
({ \
int __res = 1; \
struct elfhdr *__h = (hdr); \
\
if ((__h->e_machine != EM_MIPS) && \
(__h->e_machine != EM_MIPS_RS4_BE)) \
__res = 0; \
if (__h->e_flags & EF_MIPS_ARCH) \
__res = 0; \
\
__res; \
})
I think we should make an exception for MIPS2. Turns out that the two Linux
VR processor families benefit from some of the MIPS II features; most
notably, code density is improved by eliminating load delay slots. If I
build executables that take advantage of this, they legitimately should be
flagged with E_MIPS_ARCH_2 (since they won't run on my decstation).
So what's the right way to fix this? Three things come to mind:
1) rip out the EF_MIPS_ARCH check from elf_check_arch.
2) compare the value with E_MIPS_ARCH_1 and E_MIPS_ARCH_2
3) figure out what the capabilities of the current processor are and reject
E_MIPS_ARCH2 on R2/3000s.
I'd just go do #3 except it looks like a bigger pain than it's worth. No
other linux kernel port goes to that amount of trouble, of course.
(I may do #1 or #2 in the Linux VR CVS as a stopgap.)
Jay
next reply other threads:[~2000-11-07 2:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-11-07 2:20 Jay Carlson [this message]
2000-11-07 2:20 ` kernel should not reject -mips2 ELF binaries Jay Carlson
2000-11-07 2:28 ` Ralf Baechle
2000-11-07 3:00 ` Jay Carlson
2000-11-07 3:00 ` Jay Carlson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=KEEOIBGCMINLAHMMNDJNEEDHCAAA.nop@nop.com \
--to=nop@nop.com \
--cc=linux-mips@fnet.fr \
--cc=linux-mips@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox